A recent political controversy has renewed attention on a key part of the U.S. government: federal courts. House Speaker Mike Johnson suggested that Congress might dismantle certain courts that rule against former President Donald Trump. This statement raised immediate concerns about judicial independence and the balance of powers outlined in the Constitution.
In this article, we will explore who controls federal courts, what authority Congress holds over them, and why judicial independence is essential for American democracy.
What Are Federal Courts?
Federal courts are part of the judicial branch of the U.S. government. They are responsible for interpreting laws, resolving disputes, and protecting constitutional rights. There are three main levels of federal courts:
-
District Courts – where most federal trials begin.
-
Courts of Appeals – which review decisions made in district courts.
-
The U.S. Supreme Court is the highest federal court in the country.
Importantly, all federal courts except the Supreme Court are created by Congress under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Additionally, federal judges serve lifetime terms, which helps ensure that they remain independent and impartial.
Who Has Authority Over Federal Courts?
The Constitution clearly outlines authority in Article III, Section 1, which states:
“The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”
In other words, while the Supreme Court is permanent and required by the Constitution, Congress has full authority to create, structure, or eliminate the lower federal courts. Moreover, Congress determines how many judgeships exist, what cases each court may hear, and the structure of each court system.
However, that authority has limits. For example:
-
Congress cannot eliminate the Supreme Court.
-
Congress cannot fire judges over political disagreements.
-
Congress cannot reduce judicial salaries to pressure judges.
Instead, if Congress wants to remove a judge, it must use the impeachment process, which requires a majority vote in the House and a two-thirds vote in the Senate.
Can Congress Eliminate Federal Courts?
Lower federal courts exist at the discretion of Congress, which can choose to terminate them through its constructive authority. The institutions that the government established through its power of creation can be dismantled or reorganized by the same authorities.
The passing of the Judiciary Act of 1801 repeal bill in 1802 led to the abolition of newly implemented circuit courts by Congress. Congress adjusts both court numbers and judge counts according to changing caseload conditions and administrative requirements. Establishments modify lower federal courts through practical changes that stay away from political issues.
The removal of courts for safeguarding ex-president Donald Trump would potentially violate the U.S. Constitution. A court elimination move under these circumstances would probably qualify as power abuse, which would encounter multiple legal challenges. In this case, intent matters. The act breaks constitutional principles when performed to obstruct justice or intimidate judicial personnel.
What Did Mike Johnson Say?
According to The Guardian, House Speaker Mike Johnson floated the idea of eliminating certain courts that continue to rule against Donald Trump. Not surprisingly, legal scholars and former judges condemned the statement. They warned that using congressional authority in this way would undermine the independence of the judiciary and weaken public trust in the legal system.
Moreover, many viewed Johnson’s remarks as a direct threat to judicial neutrality. Courts must remain free to rule based on law, not political convenience. Otherwise, they risk becoming tools of political retaliation.
Why Judicial Independence Matters
Functional democracies need judicial independence as their basic operating parameter. Judges need complete freedom when they decide cases based only on laws and constitutional principles. Based on this principle, the Constitution gives judges permanent positions and guaranteed salaries to secure their independence from political oppression.
All judges would face imminent threats because members of the legislature could seek to eliminate courts after every disagreement over rulings. Confidence in legal operations would gradually diminish when these conditions continued. The public would stop believing that courts operate in unbiased ways about important political decisions.
Checks and Balances in Action
The U.S. government was built on a system of checks and balances, with three separate branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. Each branch has distinct powers and limits, designed to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful.
Consequently, Congress must exercise caution when altering the structure of the courts. If lawmakers eliminate courts for political reasons, they risk upsetting the balance of power. In extreme cases, this could even lead to a constitutional crisis.
Historical Perspective
The American government’s developers established a balanced system of power between three distinct branches named legislative, executive, and judicial. The government maintains specific powers that belong to different branches of government to stop any individual branch from gaining absolute dominance. Congress needs to carefully consider any changes it makes to court organization.
The structure of power between branches becomes unbalanced when legislators initiate court eliminations for political purposes. The situation may escalate to a constitutional crisis with such actions.
Call KAASS LAW today!
Federal courts are not merely political bodies—they are protectors of the Constitution, enforcers of the law, and defenders of civil liberties. While Congress does have authority over the lower courts, this power comes with responsibility.
At KAASS LAW, we believe that any attack on judicial independence is an attack on democracy itself. The judiciary must remain impartial, insulated from political interference, and committed to upholding the rule of law. You can also check our blog section for relevant topics.